Tweet
Originally posted by Iconoclast
View Post
-
No they're just stupid Ike. I don't know why you've put Journal Believer in your post I've known all along you're a journal believer. -
Seems likely if they believe the diary.Originally posted by Iconoclast View PostG U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
-
-
-
Did I really put 'Journal Believer' in?Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
Damn that labotomy ...Comment
-
-
Well it probably would have been if it hadn't been for that damned labotomy.Originally posted by John Wheat View PostComment
-
-
-
Christopher T. George
Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/Comment
-
Here is what you wrote, David:Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
You must admit, your wording is at best ambiguous, at worse entirely misleading. You seemed to be saying that I had responded in that way, otherwise your accusation: 'as I knew you inevitably would' and 'this is an utterly futile response' makes no sense. You knew nothing of the kind because I did not, nor ever would have made the utterly futile response you had wrongly anticipated and kindly drafted for me.Caz – this is the very reason why I asked you to take my earlier posts into account before replying to me: so that you didn't respond (as I knew you inevitably would) by saying that, because O&L searched their records for 1990, Barrett couldn't have acquired the scrapbook in 1990, so that this claim is "a demonstrable untruth." This is an utterly futile response if the answer is that Barrett got his chronology wrong.
Perhaps a little more care with your wording (not to mention your presumptions about what I would inevitably post if I failed to see you trying to avoid me doing so - if that even makes sense) would not go amiss. Here's a little tweak to demonstrate what I mean:
'Caz – this is the very reason why I asked you to take my earlier posts into account before replying to me: in the hope that you wouldn't respond (as I thought you might) by saying that, because O&L searched their records for 1990, Barrett couldn't have acquired the scrapbook in 1990, so that this claim is "a demonstrable untruth". If you had been thinking of such a response, it would have been an utterly futile one if the answer is that Barrett got his chronology wrong.'
And then I would simply have reassured you that such an utterly futile response was all in your mind, but could not have been further from mine.
Do you see the crucial difference?
Love,
Caz
XLast edited by caz; 01-16-2017, 05:07 AM."Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
I wrote this:
And you responded with this:And yes, I have no doubt whatsoever that 1990 was just another of Mike's dating errors, while trying to figure out how to make at least one of his various and varied forgery confessions credible when compared to facts that could be established.
Are you quite incapable of working out what I wrote and what I didn't?Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
Did I write that Mike 'must' have known he had never purchased the diary at any time? No I didn't. I don't believe he got it from O&L, minus its content, but he got it from someone, and for all you know money changed hands.
Have you not read all the contradictory claims Mike made, which we refer to in Ripper Diary? Are you saying he didn't have to try and figure out which claims to include in his sworn statements and which ones to reject as the product of a drink befuddled mind? If he was confused over the dates of the critical events, he was equally confused over the events themselves, including how the kidney shaped stain got in the diary, to name just one. So how was he able to recall and sift through each and every claim he had made to various people, and to keep mental hold of those which reflected reality - if any - and let go of all the nonsense, if he had only been deceiving himself up until that point and hadn't known what was real and what was not? How did he gain the sudden clarity he needed in order to describe the main events as they happened, if not when? If he relied on his own confused mind to sort it all out, how did he do it?
And of course, if he told even one deliberate lie (to the papers in June 1994 about forging the diary himself; to Alan Gray about Anne dropping a real kidney on the diary; to Doreen about how he got Jack the Ripper's diary), there is very little he could not have been lying about in connection with the blessed thing, which is why I take nothing he has ever claimed as gospel without confirmation from a reliable independent source.
Love,
Caz
XLast edited by caz; 01-16-2017, 05:49 AM."Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
Or why indeed a true one? It cost him dear either way, so he must have had his own powerful reasons at the time. Why do so many disturbed people make false confessions? How many people make true confessions which are rejected by the authorities for lack of evidence to take them further?Originally posted by GUT View Post
Love,
Caz
X"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
I think it is somewhat telling that despite a very detailed description of a hoax which had cost people tens of thousands of pounds (which Mike sadly reinvested up a wall), our friends from Scotland Yard simply looked up at the Heavens and tutted derisively.Originally posted by caz View Post
'The World's Greatest Forger', he claimed. And the luckiest too given that he was allowed to get away with it despite fessing up!
As I said earlier, you (DO) should be looking at candidates far more likely to have hoaxed the Maybrick journal - like Gandhi, like Mother Theresa, like St. Columbus, like Bruce Springsteen ...
IkeComment
Comment